[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

02451: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

From: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 10:57:15 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Hamid, 
The bet developing hope  for a fairer, more sustainable COUNTER-INTIMIDATION is a registered majority (or balance-swinging minority)  of voters in ENOUGH  marginal jurisdictions to oblige office-seekers to join the committed Simpol  [  www.simpol.org ] adopters. 
–Doug Everingham. 
====


From:   Rachel.Pemberton(at)aph.gov.au
Subject: Parliamentary Review
Date: 18 November 2009 6:42:02 PM
To:   undisclosed-recipients:;

On 19/11/2009, at 12:11 AM, Luca Zampetti wrote:

Hamid,

you can ask these categories of self-appointed beings or of agents of hidden powers many things, all things you want, no one will listen ... or rather they will apparently listen with one ear and transmit to direct output for discharge with the other ... Ostrogorski once said that the state is a (relatively) stable institution because it has a generalized capability for INTIMIDATION on its subjects, who, according to some should not be called subjects, but deserve to be deemed "Citizens", at least as if ... well: you can expect to be heard ONLY if you have some power of COUNTER-INTIMIDATION on these people ... until they have the power to buy media and votes and you don´t, nothing will change ... until there will be such a COUNTER-INTIMIDATION thing, everybody needs to take care not to snarch so loud as to wake up his own or somebody else´s dog ...

Luca Zampetti


Da: Esi <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>
A: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
InviaTo: Mer 18 novembre 2009, 14:18:22
OggetTo: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Good idea
We can also present the result of discussions and votings for media and power elites and ask them to respect peoples will and not their own interests and decisions.

Hamid

Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2009 11:38 AM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

I recommend the formation of a multinational, multiethnic and multi-locational army for the export of DD from Switzerland all over the world, first of all US and Russia, maybe for 3rd to China ... and for zeroeth, to Italy ... as well as into the so-called "international" organizations ...

Luca Zampetti


Da: Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au>
A:wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
InviaTo: Mer 18 novembre 2009, 07:30:46
OggetTo: Re: [WDDM] Agree or Disagree

Bruce, 
Sociocracy is in practice more successful in increasing consensus than alternative 
51% majority or other 'democratic' but not consensus-pursuing systems        
Who then succeeds in " times [when] democratic vote is necessary"
Abortion laws reach a variety of compromises related to the national, religious etc. cultures. 
At one extreme, aborters and voluntary abortees are charged with murder. 
At the other extreme, abortion is imposed on women for national, religious etc. reasons. 
Similar compromising applies to the other examplesyou mention: 
"... war, tax rate, climate issues, individual election to office ... "
Thus war is often launched by a relatively old, rich, powerful minority, 
or by an oppressed, desperate populace, not a 51% popular ('democratic') vote,  

Cheers 
Doug 
====

On 17/11/2009, at 11:48 AM, Bruce Eggum wrote:

Doug, the example abortion was one of many examples I provided where "consensus" was unlikely, yet decisions need to be made. Thus there will be times democratic vote is necessary. There needs to be consideration of this need or sociocracy will hamper democracy.
Regards, Bruce



On Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 7:37 PM, Doug Everingham <dnevrghm(at)powerup.com.au> wrote:
Yes, Bruce, I miswrote  sociography for sociocracy .
.
.

[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]